Cleopatra is spelled as [hill] [lion] [reed flower] [rope] [net] [eagle] [hand] [mouth] [eagle] [half circle] [egg]. This corresponds to 'Cleopatrato' where [-to] is a Greek femine suffix. The latin names of some of those symbols could be "hill" 'collis', "eagle" 'accipiter', "hand" 'trado', "open mouth" 'rictus', and "egg" 'ovum'. This gives us five more correspondances to Latin.
In 'Caesar' we find some of the same symbols and the [basket] symbol which corresponds to 'calathus' or 'corbis', it is similar to a bowl ('cratera'). In Alexander the Great we find some of the same symbols and the [water] symbol which has the phonetic value /n/. In view of the evidence this must correspond to 'nauticus'. In 'Hadrian' we find some of the same letters and the [home] symbol which must correspond to 'habitatio'. This gives us a total of 10 corresponding first letters out of 18 symbols. I think also [continual] corresponds to 'sempiternus', but we can leave that out of the proof due to uncertainty at this point.
The probability of this correspondance is 1 out of 100,000,000,000,000. This mathematical probability is based on the principle that the probability of an event occuring in a space of time while another event occurs in the same space of time is the probablilty of the two events occuring in that space of time independently and then multiplied. The probability of event A and event B is the probability of A times the probability of B. So we can conclude that the fact is that the Egyptian language of the Greco-Roman period was related to Latin. This says nothing of the Egyptian language before or after the Greco-Roman period.
When we include [sempiternus] we have 11 correspondances out of 18 which suggests that the Egyptian language is at least 61% related to Latin. There is much evidence suggesting that Egyptian is structurally more related to semitic languages than any other languages. This suggests that the correspondance to Latin is due to loan words and that the phonetic values of 11 of the 18 symbols are not correct for Ancient Egyptian. That means that Ancient Egyptian could not have been deciphered. If Egyptian was related to Latin early on then we know Egyptian is not deciphered, because we do not find corresponding lexical items in Egyptologist's dictionaries. According to the evidence there is no possibility that Egyptian could have been deciphered. I must conclude that this is mathematically proven, as scientific proofs must rest on mathematics, and Linguistics is a science.
As an amature Egyptologists and amature Linguist and Decipherer, I find Egyptian is related structurally to Semitic languages, along with Hamito languages.
